
Class 

Book 






T HE S LAVERY <4UES I iujn 

i 

SPEECH 



HON DANIEL WALLACE, OE SOUTH CAROLINA, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 8, 1850, ^ 

In Committee of the Whole on the slate of the Union, on the President's Message com- 
municating the Constitution of California. 



Mr. WALLACE rose and said: 

M ... o u .v Among iiivruiiKiuut y ieStnma 

which now demand our attention, none are more 
deserving the profound consideration of the Ameri- 
can people than the questions of the non-extension, 
and of the abolition, of slavery. The bill now 
on your table affords me a fit occasion to express 
my views on these subjects, which now so fearfully 
agitate the public mind. I believe 1 shall be able 
to show, that non-exiension is but the means by 
which the abolition of slavery is intended to be ac- 
complished. I shall therefore consider these sub- 
jects together, with the view to show the identity 
of their object and tendency. 

The agitation of these questions has produced a 
state of excitement in the public, mind, unexam- 
pled in our history. Throughout a large section 
of the Union, deep discontent prevails, and men 
calmly und sternly deliberate upon the meansof 
saving themselves and their children from the in- 
tolerable wrongs which are impending over them. 
Confidence in this Government, to answer the ends 
of its formation, is rapidly giving way. We can- 
not, without being criminally guilty, close our eyes 
to the fact, that old political systems are viewed 
with profound and well-founded distrust, and the 
advantages of new ones, formed upon their ruins, 
openly and boldly discussed. This want of con- 
fidence in established systems, is not confined to 
Europe. It is here in our midst also. The human 
mind asserts its freedom, and will no longer be 
deluded by the sanctity, which the hallowed asso- 
ciations of the past have !hrnu/fi Brnnnil n name. 

The substance of things is now demanded, and 
this demand must be satisfied. To draw a faithful 
picture of the state of the Union, in reference to 
these questions, is the duty now before me. 

The first step towards the restriction of slavery, 
was the enactment of the ordinance of 1787, the 
Bixth article of which reads as follows: 

"There shall lie neither slavery nor involuntary servi- 
tude in the said territory, otherwi e titan in the punishment 
fof oriines, whereofthe party shall have be n duly convicted : 
Provi/M always. Thai any person escaping; into the same, 

from whom labor or service is lawfully el limed in anj 

of the original Stat is, <ii'-li fugitives may hi lawfully re- 
claimed, and conveyed to ti e person claming hie or hi r 
labor or service, as aforesajd." 

In the Federal Convention which framed the 
Constitution, the southern States prescribed the 
terms upon which alone they -would agree to 



become parties to it. They demanded, that the 
pruriiw iii ihia ordinance, fbr the surrender of 
fugitives from labor, should become a part of the 
Constitution. 

They also demanded, that persons held to 
service, should lie represented in Congress; and to 
effect this object, the following clause was inserted 
in the Constitution: 

"Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned 
among the several States, which may be included within 
this Union, according to their respective numbers, which 
shall he determined by adding to the whole number of free 
persons, including those bound to service for a term of 
years, and excluding Indians not taxed, thrcc-fijllts of all 
<jthcr persons.'* 

These clauses constitute the guaranties which 
the southern States demanded before they would 
consent to enter into the Union, and without 
which the Union never would have been formed. 
They are fundamental conditions of the compact 
which was formed between the North and the 
South, in reference to the great question now at 
issue between them. With what fidelity the North 
have kept, that compact, I will now proceed to 
show. 

The. ordinance of 1787 shadowed forth the policy 
which the North are now pursuing. The intention 
is now avowed, to restrict slavery to its present 
limits, with the view to ultimate abolition in the 
States. 

The Missouri compromise was another act in 
the same drama — the accomplishment of another 
part of the same scheme. In ll at compromise, the 
INurili agreed that the line of 3C° 30' north latitude 
should forever divide the slaveholding from the 
non-slaveholding States. Tins compromise em- 
braced all the territory acquired in 1803, by the 
treaty of Paris. In this territory slavery prevailed 
everywhere, bill was abolished north of the com- 
promise line. The North now lepudiate that com- 
promise, and are impatient to spread upon the 
record more conclusive evidence, if it were want- 
ing, to establish the fact, that no constitutions, no 
compromises, no compacts, or solemn engage- 
ments, into which they enter upon this question 

no matter how binding in law or conscience, or 
how solemn the form and ceremonial of their exe- 
cution — can bind them to the observance of their 
moms any longer than suits their own pur- 
poses. 

The ordinance of 1787 provided for the surrender 



73878 






of fugitives from service. In the Constitution, this 
provision waa reaffirmed in solemn form. The 
same compact was expressly recognized in the 
Missouri compromise, as applicable to free States 
to be formed out of the Louisiana territory. Thus 
has this fundamental law been three times affirmed, 
at three successive epochs in our history, and as 
often violated and disregarded. 

The expression, " delivering up fugitives," is a 
technical term in the law of nations, and is often 
used in extradition treaties. It is twice used in 
the Constitution — once in relation to fugitives from 
justice, and once in r« lation to fugitives from labor. 
In its technical meaning, it imposes an obligation 
on the State in which the fugitive is found, to take 
active measures for his redelivery to his owner; 
or if a fugitive from justice, to the State having 
jurisdiction of the crime for which he fled. Up to 
the time of the Missouri compromise, nearly all 
the northern States hud passed laws to carry out, 
in good faith", this provision of the Constitution, 
and the fugitive from labor was provided for in tho 
same statutes which provided for the delivery up 
of fugitives from justice. But as the scheme of 
abolition advanced towards the ends to be accom- 
plished, another policy was adopted. These 
statutes were repealed, and a large majority of the 
northern States have since passed laws to prevent 
the redelivery of fugitives from service. This is 
the abolition policy, to which the States of the 
North are committed by the acts of their legisla- 
tures, in open violation of the Constitution. 

I repeat, that a design is now avowed to restrict 
slavery to its present limits, with the view to its 
final abolition in the States. To show that proofs 
are abundant upon this subject, I call the atten- 
tion of the committee to a speech lately delivered 
here, by a member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Ste- 
vens.] He first quotes from a speech of Mr. 
Meade, of Virginia. "If," said Mr. Meade, 
" we intend to submit to the policy of confining 
' the slaves within their present limits, we should 
5 commence forthwith the work of gradual emanci- 
' pation. It is an easier task for us than for our 
'children." The member next repeats a remark 
from the speech of Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama. 
" We must," said Mr. Hilliard, " make up our 
4 minds to resist the interdiction of the progress of 
' slavery, or to submit to an organic change in our 
4 institutions." In reply to these remarks of Mr. 
Meade and Mr. Hilliard, the member from 
Pennsylvania exultingly exclaims: 

" YeS, sir ; this admitted result ie, to my mind, ono oftln. 

most agreeable consequi noes of the legitimate restriction 
of slavery. Confine this malady within its present limits, 
surround it by a cordon of freemen that it cannot spread, 
and in less than twentv rive years, every slaveholding Plate 
in this Union will have on its statue books a law for the 
nradual and final extinction of slavery. Then will have 
been consummated the fondest wishes of every patriot's 
heart. Then will our f:iir country he glorious indeed ; and 
be to posterity a bright example of the true principles of 
government— of universal freedom. 

« I am opposed to the extension of slavery into territories 
now free, for still graver reasons, because I am opposed to 
itism throughout the world. 1 admit that this Govern- 
ment cannot preach a crusade of liberty into other States 
and nations ; much as she abhors tyrants and tyranny, there 
she can only mourn over its existence. But when Hie ques- 
tion of government is within' her own control, and she per- 
mits despotism to exist, and aids its diffusion, she is respon- 
sible fir it in the face of the civilized world, and before the 
God of Liberty." 

In these sentiments, often repeated here, the end 
and aim of all this slavery restriction, this free- 



soil and abolition agitation, may be clearly seen. 
The member from Pennsylvania sends forth the 
rallying cry to the abolition legions of the North, 
to press forward to the accomplishment of this 
great scheme of slavery restriction, with a view to 
its final abolition in the States. " Surround them 
1 with a cordon of freemen," says he, " so that 
1 slavery cannot spread, and in less than twenty- 
' five years every slaveholding State in this Union 
' will have on its statute books, a law for thegrad- 
' ual and final extinction of slavery." 

Sir, this avowal of the ultimate design of the 
free-soil scheme, does not disclose to me any new 
phase, in the controversy between North and 
South. I have heretofore warned the people I 
represent, that it is the design of the majority of 
the North, to accomplish the end announced, by 
the member from Pennsylvania; that is, to surround 
the slave States by a cordon of free States — to 
confine them to their present limits; and more 
still, to circumscribe these limits, by driving in the 
outposts or slavery, in ctre iiuia... tju.»«,, wivl» tUf 
view to the final abolition of slavery, and until the 
South, hemmed in on all sides, is reduced to the 
condition now exhibited by St. Domingo. This 
is the abolition scheme, of which non-extension is 
but the means to accomplish the end. 

To obtain the control of every department of 
the Government, to enable them to effect their de- 
signs, it was first necessary to provide for the 
united action of a majority in both Houses of Con- 
gress, and to elect a President who would repudiate 
the veto power. Both these preliminary steps 
have been accomplished. Gradually the work of 
uniting all parties at the North, up to a well-de- 
fined geographical line, has been going on. Any 
public functionary who dared to accord justice to 
the South, soon found a political grave. Ex- 
Presidents have entered the lists of free-soil, and 
contended for the prize offered by the inscriptions 
upon its banner, as did the kings of the East in 
the Olympic games. Down with slavery was the 
battle-cry, which has rallied the legions of these 
crusaders. True, they march to the field of action 
under banners slightly differing in device, but 
when once there, Whig, Democrat, Abolitionist, 
and Free Soiler, all unite in one grand army, for 
the overthrow of slavery. Every aspirant for 
political honors, has learned, that to denounce 
the South, and preach deliverance to the slave, w 
the only road to political distinction. And how- 
ever much the different organizations of party may 
difiax r>n minor Questions of public policy, upon 
non-extension they all agree. On this subject 
there is but one party and one policy. As far, 
therefore, as this question is concerned, how does 
the northern Whig differ from the northern Demo- 
crat, or how does the Free Soiler and Abolitionist 
differ from either ? Do not all give their aid to the 
great scheme of ultimate abolition, by pressing 
forward the scheme of non-extension ? Did not 
all vote for the Wilmot proviso, with three or 
four exceptions, while it was a practical question? 
Are not all now in favor of the admission of Cali- 
fornia, and that, too, for the reason that the Wilmot 
proviso is ingrafted in, and constitutes a part of, 
her so-called fundamental law, and that her admis- 
sion into the Union thus becomes a part of the 
scheme of non-extension, and therefore of ultimate 
abolition? And what is it worth to us, if some 
do it reluctantly ? 



:i 



This Union of incompatible elements, up to the 
geographical line which divides the North from \\ 
the South. ential purpose, 

de- 
i jorityii • rhere c 

is, th , le in (ho way of the - 

ahsokne power of this majority; and 'hat is ;he 
Constitution. Bt i.ied 

by written -sary 

majority, 'the nej move every ob- 

pur- 
pose, the Constitution must be overthrown, and 
the will of the majoril ed in its stead. 

We have thus, arrived at a new era in our politi- 
cal history. The time has come, When the 
tion roust be decided, as was said by the gentleman 
from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] how far wri 
constitutions can protect the rights of a minority, 
against the. usur| s majority. 

There must be a veto power somewhere. If the 
President refuses to discharge his constitutional 
duties, the minori 

U.<..i.-r . "i ob nestroyod. 

To n, a new v . 

ulary is bein^ farmed, and a catalogue of ideas, 
heretofore unknown, a.-- brought to our considera- 
tion. At one tit. •■•needed, by the high- 
est authority, th - ' this Confederacy can 
Reaceibly secede from it. Upon this subject Mr. 
ladison said, in the debates on the Federal Con- 
stitution: 

i has been alleged, that t'u Confederation having been 
formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved bj "unani- 
mous consent only. Does this doctrine result from the na- 
ture- of compacts? Does it arise from any particular stipula- 
tion in the Articles of Confederation ? If we consider the 
Federal Union as analogous to the fundamental compact, by 
which individuals compose one sr>cie;y. . :;d which must in 
its theoretic origin, at least, have been thi ui 
of the component members, it canno be s.od. tire no disso- 
lution of the compact can without uriaui 
consent A breach of the fundamental principles of me 
compact, by a part of the society, would certainly 
the other part from tluir obligations to it. If the bn aeh of 
any article, by . m o the parties, doc- not set the others at 
liberty, it is because thi contrary is Implied in the compact 
itself, and particularly in that law of it which gives an in- 
definite authority to 'the majority to bind the whole in all 
cases. This latter circumstance shows, that we ar : not to 
consider the Federal Union as analogous 'o the social cow- 
pact oi individual.-, for it'ii were so. a majority would have a 
right to bind the rest, and even to form a new Constitution 
for the whole, which the genu" man from Nrfev. 
rso.n-,1 would 

n as analogous, no! to th< 
compacts anions; individual men, but to the conventions 
amour; individual States, what is the doctrines re ultlng 
worn these conventions ? Clearl 

ins, that a breach of any one article by 

n»y ..,,.. j>,,r. , 

the whole convention a^ dissolved." 

The convi ie State of Virginia, which 

i ratify th< ' 3titution, in the 

of ratification, used the following language: 

" We, the delegates ofttae penp 
in pursuance of a recommendation from I 
bit. n >« mi ; in convention, having fully and 
tigated and discussed the federal Con- 

vention, and Ik ina prepared, as well as the root in 
deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, do, in lie 
name and in behalf of the pr.opi . . declare and 

make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution 
bciii? derived from the people of the I niti d States, 
resumed in m, I,,, whensoever the same shall be pi r 
to their injury or oppression, and thai every pow< 
grant d thereby, remains with them and at their will. That 
therefore, no right of any denomination filed, 

abridged, restrained, or modified, by -! • by the 

Senate or House of Representative*, acting in B 



by the President, or any departne n' ir • (5 er of the United 
- 

At the same period of time, a convention of the 
State of New York met to ratify ihe Constitution, 
which convention, in the terms ot ratification, used 
the following language: 

"We, the delegates of the people ni I ie State o( V (t 
York, dulv elected and met In convention, bavins; maturely 
considered the Constitution for the United States of Amer- 
1 ica," " and having also seriously and deha. ratelj • in-idered 
; the present situation of the United States, do declare and 
make known, that all power is originally vested in. and con- 
sequently derived from, the people, ami that government is 
instituted by them for their common interest, protection and 
security;" <: that the powers of government may he reas- 
suroed by thr people, whenever it shail become necessary 
for their bappii 

In the amendments to the Federal Constitution, 
j proposed by the convention of the State of Vir- 
ginia, that convention declared: 

" That governments ought to be instituted fir the common 
benefit, protection, and security of the people, and that the 
doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and op- 
pression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good 
and happiness nf mankind." 
The convention of the State of North Carolina, 
I under the same circumstances, made 
the following declaration in their bill of rights: 

■''Thai government ought to be instituted for the common 

benefit, protection, and security of the people, and that the 

doctrine of nnn-resistan « against arbitrary power and op- 

I, slavish, and d slroetive to the good and 

happiness of mankind " 

Sir, thus spoke the men who framed the Con- 
stitution i-:;der which we have so long lived and 
acted; and with these declarations, and this un- 
derstanding of the meaning: md theory of our re- 
publican system, the Federal Constitution was 
ratified. Thesovereign parties to the compact of 
i, at, the moment they formed ir, declared, in 
express terms — to which all the States assented — 
that they cut r.d into . int with the under- 

standing, that a breach of Mty one article, by any 
one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty to 
consider the whole dissolved; that they were at 
liberty to withdraw from it, and re-assume the 
rs granted whenever, in their judgment, it 
try to their safety and happiness, 
and at the same time affirm d the right find duty 
to resist arbitrary rower and oppression, and that 
the doctrine nf non-resistai :e is absurd, slavish, 
and destru 33of man- 

kind. 
1 have appealed to this venerable authorit 
id, for the purpose of contrasting it with the 
majority wiio now control this 
eja nm g at . This majority have adopted, as 
I of axioms di- 
h these fundamental doctrines of 
our republican fathers. These axioms are, that 
this Governmem is the sole judge of the extent of 
its own powers; that a majority, either within or 
without the Constitution, must govern in all cases 
whatsoever; that to the will of this majority, aa 
expressed by their votes, the minority must sub- 
mit; that a State — one or more — cannot peaceably 
secede fro m n, without the consent of the 

majority; that to attempt to do so, is rebellion; 
that rebellion is treason against the General Gov- 
ernment, to which all primary allegiance is due; 
that, as a consequence, the people of a State which 
should attempt io secede from the Union, would 
. be rebels and traitors; that, -being thus criminal, a 
resort by the President to the military power,'^is 



the proper remedy to put down such rebellion, 
and thereby preserve the Union by force ol'arni.;, 
and enforce the will of the majority by the sword. 
These doctrines are continually avowed he 
debate. Lot me call the attention of this commit- 
tee to the concluding paragraph of a speech lately 
made by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FJis- 
ell,] calling himself a democrat: "Illinois," 
said he, " proffered to the country nine regiments, 
' to aid in the vindication of her right 
' with Mexico; and should danger threaten the 
'Union, from any source, or in any quarter — in 
' the North or in the South — she will be ready to 
'furnish twice, thrice, yes, four times 
' ber, to march where thai, danger may be — to re- 
' turn when it is passed, or return no more. '•" 

Let me not be misunderstood by this House or 
by the country. This tirade of the member from 
Illinois, is extremely harmless; and, under ordi- 
nary circumstances, would excite a smile only. 
But when viewed in its true light, as one of the 
signs of the times, indicating demy , iv< •. 
the independence of the States is den 
this Government is, in fact, no 
rated Republic of sovereign and i 
a consolidated despotism, and thai its edicts are to 
be enforced by the sword; then, this declamatory 
display of the member from llli nes a 

degree of importance not intended, pei 
should arouse the people of the South to a unit! - ! 
and determined resistance. 

Bui this is notail. The gentleman fro 
chusetts, [Mr. Mann,] ina rece.it speech — a s\ 
characterized by a spirit of ferocity and malignity 
never surpassed in parliamentary history — use J 
the following language, in reply to som 
lately made by Governor Troup, of Georgia, in a 
letter to a friend: 

" Mr. Chairman, (s;iid lit-,) such collision would bi 
such li rcibli ■ .- enl would b 

son. Its agents and abettors would be traitors, 
this rebellion rears it- crest, martial law will be proclai 
and those found with hostile arms in their hands, tutu 
pare for the felon's doom." 

These are the doctrines of the majority, to « 
the people of the South are told they must submit, 
under the penalty of a felon's and a traiti 
The first object of this majority i.- 
litical power, with the view to bring 
upon the slavery question. Secondly. I 
for the perpetuity of that power in themselves; 
and, thirdly, to identify the persons upon w 
that power may acr. And thus theConstituI 
overthrown, and the North becomes the I 
and the South the victim. 

The great scheme of non-extension is the nr 
by which all this is to be accomplished, The 
majority are united upon this policy. There ore 
now thirty States in the Union. Delaware-may 
be classed with the North, with whom she frater- 
nizes and acts. The North have now, then 
thiriy-two Senators, and the South twenty-eight; 
and in the populai branch of the Government, the 
North have a majority of forty-four Representa- 
tives. 

Let us now 1" noment, at the state of 

thirds which must prevail, if the free-soil scheme 
be carried out. It is avowed that no more slave I 
States shall be admitted into the Union, and that 
all the territorial districts shall be brought in^ as 
free Stafs. If this be done, the inequality which 
now exists between North and South will be 01 



: creased to an extent that will utterly destroy the 
balance of power between the two sections, and 
place the South at the mercy of the North. 

I hold in my hand the 3d vol. Executive docu- 
ments, 2d session 30th Congress, which contains 
an appendix to the annual report of the Commia- 
sioner of the General Land Office. By an exam- 
ination of this reoort, it appears that the territorial 
districts of the United States contain a ideographi- 
cal area of 1,861,976 square miles. Of this vast 
extent of country, 262,729 square miles lie south, 
and 1,599,247 north of the line of 36° 30' north 
latitude. The State of Ohio is a large average 
State, and contains, in round numbers. 40,000 
square miles. If, then, the State of Ohio be taken 

e basis of calculation, this territory will be 
found equal to forty-six States as large as Ohio. 
Of these States, six lie south, and forty north, of 
the Missouri compromise iioe. If the question 
now before the country was settled on the basis 
of the AIissoueicoinpromi.se — but which the North 
refuse to u.- ,u. Nw«t< »-~*Ld o.ory 

enough for forty new States, and the South, six. 
The resolutions by which Texas was admitted 
into the Union provide, that four ■ may, 

with the consent of Texas, be formed out of the 
territory of that State. This gives the South ter- 
ritory sufficient for ten new S free- 

cheme be carried ou;, then ■ . will 

have territory enough for forty-six new States, 
which, added to the old States, will make their 
whole number sixty-two States, « South 

will have but eigh 
This monstrous scheme of fraud and imposition 
docs not sti it has con- 

nected with it another scheme, to dismember 
Texas, in order to restrict slavery ell the 

number of free States. The majority have as- 

1 that the boundary of Texas in the South 
yond the Ri\ , and 

that the country lying between that river and 
the Rio Grande belo United Si 

This country contain.- ." 52,018 square 

miles, and is therefon 

■ylvunia. 
limits will dl me to enter in 

rits nf this boundary question, 
will only ren t, in my judgment, the 

of Texas to the Rio G and 

•n boundary, and « hi- h u d in 

law established by the treaty of Guadalupe Hi- 
dalgo, can be shown to the if any 
court of justice in the U nited State s. This as- 
sumption of the map my, groundless ai 
stitutei i.-.nt in the abolition 
policy. It ling. 
The 'territory to which this claim i: j . set up, ex- 
tends to the Gult of Mexico. If the majority can 
succeed in. annulling the. claim o( ■ this 
country, and admit i 1 into the Union as a iref. 

they will thereby perfe nrbole non- 

ne. The migrati .icon 

slaves along the gulf shore will b< id the 

cordon, to whi( li the member from. Pennsylvania 
alluded with so much , will in fact be 

extended all around us. 

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply impressed with the 
ure is not overdrawn. To 
this result, i ji development in the history 
of the country has been slowly, but surely, tend- 
ing, ever since the enactment of the ordinance of 



1787. This tendency was slow at first. Time is 
required lo effect all great changes in the progress 
and destinies of States and Empires. The appa- 
rent cessation of this tendency, which took place 
between the time of the enactment of the ordinance 
of 1787 and the Missouri compromise, was but the 
time required for the growth of the new States; 
and time only is required ;iow to accomplish the 
«vent. The wisest of our statesmen, at the forma- 
tion of this Government, never saw as deep into 
the future as the present hour. But time has re- 
moved the veil which hid the present from their 
eyes, ami he is blind indeed who cannot see now 
where this nation:- ! d« velopment must end. The or- 
dinance of 1787 constituted one epoch in the history 
of abolition development. The Missouri compro- 
mise, constituted a second, and was brought about 
by the progressive increase of the population of the 
Northwest; and it is the further increase of this 
population, which now extends from the Atlantic 
to the Pacific ocean, which has brought on the 
struggle in whi< U the two sections are now en- 
gaged, and which constitutes the third gicai epoch 
in it3 history. From the beginning until now, the 
non-extension policy has been gathering strength, 
as the population of the East, North, and West, 
increased, and we now rapidly approach the final 
result. All doubt and mystery in reference to the 
object and tendency of slavery restriction, have 
passed away, and, freed from all disguises, the ques- 
tion iiow stands before us in all its importance and 
magnitude 

New States are growing up all around us, and 
the majority have declared in advance, that slavery 
shall be excluded from them all. This tide of 
population — indoctrinated as it is with hostility to 
the institutions of the South, by lessons taught, 
a'roin infancy to old a^e, in the nurseries and pri- 
mary schools, by fulminations from the forum.-; of 
Abolition societies, by religious teachings from a 
thousand pulpits, and by the circulation of incen- 
diary papers through the mails — is pouring into the 
territories of Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon. Dese- 
ret, California, and New Mexico. Some of these 
districts are now asking admission, and all will soon 
be incorporated into the Union. And as each new 
State is added, a reinforcement of Senators and 
Representatives will join the majority, maki.i^ the 
inequality which now exists between the two sec- 
tions, siil! greater, and placing it in the power of 
'.he North to carry on the abolition scheme, with- 
out check or hindrance. 

I come now to the bill on your table, for the 
.iiimio ion ot California Into the Union as a Suae. 

This bill is designed to effect another great step 
in the progress of abolition, and if passed, cuts off 
the South from the Pacific ocean forever. It is 
here, without precedent or example in tiie history 
of this Government, Why is this?, Why all 
this haste to bring this remote province into the 
Union as a State? Why is this Government called 
upon to abandon the practice which has prevailed, 
without material change, for nearly seventy 
years ?. 

It will be remembered, that when the Union was 
formed, the Unit.-d Slates, in their federati ve char- 
acter, did not osvn a foot of land upon this com 
The public domain, was owned by individual 
Stat.;;, under grunts from the British crown. In 
1780, the Congress passed a resolution recom- 
mending to the several States to cede their unap- 



propriated lands to the United States. In October 
of the same year the Congress passed another 
resolution, in which it was 

ResoU-ed, Thai the unappropriated land* that may be 
ceded or relinquished lo the United States by any pat titular 
State, pursuant to the recommendation of Congress, >-hall 
he disposed of tor the common benefit m the United States." 

Agreeably to this recommendation, Virginia, in 
March, 1784, ceded to the United States the ter- 
ritory northwest of the Ohio river. In April fol- 
j lowing, resolutions for the government of this 
. territory were passed, which were superseded by 
the ordinance of 1787, which ordinance continued 
of force until it was rendered inoperative by the 
' admission into the Union of the States formed out 
1 of the Northwest Territory. 

i The State of Ohio was admitted in 1802, having 
1 been governed as a territory eighteen years. The 
| State of Indiana was admitted in 1816, Illinois in 
! 1818, Michigan in 1837, and Wisconsin in 1845, 
i having been governed as territories thirty-two, 
thirty-four, fifty-threo, and sixty-one years, re- 
! spectiveiy. These dates refer back to the resolu- 
j lions of 1784 At intermediate periods, acts were 
j passed by Congress, granting them the power to 
; form local legislatures for their government — the 
j acts of such legislatures to be subject to the ap- 
proval of Congress. The States of Alabama and 
; Mississippi are formed from territory ceded to the 
| United States by South Carolina and Georgia. 
The State of Mississippi was admitted in 1817, 
' and Alabama in 1819, both having been longgov- 
! erned as territories. Louisiana was purchased of 
j France by the treaty of Paris, in 1803, and the 
j State of Louisiana was admitted in 1812, after 
! nine years of territorial pupilage. I deem it un- 
i necessary to extend this examination. In what I 
! have presented, the practice of the government, 
| from 1784 until now, will be clearly seen. In all 
' the cases mentioned, and in all other cases of the 
| same kind, the President appointed the governors 
! and judges of each territory, whose salaries were 
', paid out of the public treasury of the United States. 
i Preparatory to the admission of these territories 
into the Union as States, Congress passed laws 
fixing their boundaries, directing a census of the 
inhabitants to be taken, authorizing each to meet 
in convention to form a State constitution, and pre- 
scribing the qualification of voters. In the case of 
Michigan, this rule was slightly varied, but which 
: I will not stop to consider, for the reason that the 
I case is not analogous to that now presented by 
: California. 

Sir, why was this practice at first deemed nece.3- 
| sary ? Because the jurisdiction and sovereignty, 
in and over all these territorial districts, were con- 
veyed to the United States, by the respective 
deeds of cession, and Congress was therefore bound 
to exercise jurisdiction over them, that they might 
be disposed of, for the common benefit of the 
United States, and thereby fulfill the pledge made 
by Congress in the resolution of 10th October, 
1780. 

By the treaty of Guadalupe Hi . Ter- 

ritories of California and New Mexico were ceded 
to the United States; and Congress is bound, for 
the same reason, to exercise jurisdiction over 
them. By what authority, then, have the congre- 
gation of adventurers, from all nations, calling 
themselves the people of California, entered upon 
these land.}, and appropriated to themselves the 



mineral wealth they contain, in derogation of the 
rights of the United States? By what authority 
have these trespassers upon the public property 
met in convention, formed what they cull a State 
constitution, and sent their Senators and Repre- 
sentatives here, to risk admission into the Union ? 
If they have the right, under these circumstances, 
to ask admission, have they not the same right to 
ask admission into the Union of Mexico, or an- 
nexation to the British empire, and thus to wrest 
this. vast territory out of your hands, and place 
you under the necessity of reconquering it ? Have 
they not, in setting up these pretensions without 
authority from Congress, committed an act of 
manifest usurpation, disregarded your just authori- 
ty, and taken from Congress the right to exercise 
exclusivejurisdiciion over California ? If they be 
remanded to the territorial condition, may they not 
declare their independence of this Government, 
and torm political connection with any other 
power they may elect ? If the doctrine of the 
absolute sovereignty of the inhabitants of a ter- 
ritory, previous to a grant of power to them 
by the General Government to form a State, 
which is the basis of this movement, be true, do 
not these results clearly follow? And is it not 
equally clear, that if it be true, Congress has no 
jurisdiction over them, and al! acts heretofore 
passed by Congress for their government, have 
been but so many acts of usurpation ? The error 
of all this doctrine is this: The fact is overlooked, 
that there is a period, during which the inhabit- 
ants of a territory do not possess the attributes of 
sovereignty. Will it be asserted that the con- 
quered inhabitants of California were vested with 
absolute sovereignty the day after the execution 
of" the late treaty with Mexico, by which that ter- 
ritory was acquired ? If so, is it not clear that the 
United States purchased only under the rule of 
caveat emptor, and, therefore, took nothing by the 
treaty? At what time, then, since the execution 
of the treaty, did 'the inhabitants of California ac- 
quire the attribute of sovereignty ? 

The true doctrine upon this subject was laid 
down by Mr. Lowndes, while acting as chairman 
of the committee, to whom was referred the con- 
stitution of Missouri. In his report to the House 
of Represeniatives, he said: 

" In this view the committee are confirmed, by a consid- 
eration of the embarrassments and disasters which a dif- 
ferent course of proceeding might sometimes produce. 
When a people are authorized to form a Slate, and do so, 
the trammels of their territorial condition fall off. They 
have performed the act which makes them sovereign and 
independent." 

This single paragraph, from the records of past 
legislation, explodes the political solecism, which 
has lately received so much attention, in both ends 
of this Capitol, and to which the gentleman near 
me, from Ohio, [Mr. Disney,] on a late occasion, 
brought much ability to little effect, by trying to 
prove a proposition which has no foundation, 
either in reason or truth. The doctrine of absolute 
sovereignty in the inhabitants of a territory, in 
every petty province of a mother country, rs re- 
pugnant to all past history. Were these States, 
as colonies, invested with it, while subject to the 
British crown? Are the existing provinces of 
that empire, invested with it now? If so, the same 
sovereignty resides in every bandit in the moun- 
tains/without the limits of a State; and, indeed-, a 
condition of dependence cannot exist. 



There must be an act, by which the conditior, 
of political dependence is thrown off, and inde- 
pendence assumed. In our system, this act is 
performed by the permission, and under thedirec- 
tions of the mother country, according to certain 
rules and maxims. In other countries it is done 
by revolution. 

I return to the inquiry, why this haste of the 
inhabitants of California, to take upon themselves 
the burdens of self-government? Why not enter 
into the territorial transition slate, and let this Gov- 
ernment extend its protection over them, until they 
become owners by purchase of the lands they 
inhabit, and able to protect themselves, and bear 
the burdens of self-government? Why not wait 
until the anarchy which prevails there now, sub- 
sides into organic order, and their pretensions to 
the dignity and rights of an independent State, be 
founded upon reasonable grounds? The answer 
to all these questions is plain, The movement is 
that of the Abolition party. It is another step- 
towards the ultimate abolition of slavery in the 
States. California comes here whfa ti>c w;i«^t 
proviso in her so called constitution, and this is 
the reason this act of usurpation is tolerated 
Strike the Wilmot proviso from her constitution, 
and her application for admission will be rejected 
in forty-eight hours. California comes here, too, 
claiminga territory of 158,000 square miles — nearly 
equal in extent to four of the largest States in the 
Union, with nearly a thousand miles of sea-coast — 
all of which it is intended to erect into one State. 
and the majority, in their zeal for non-extension, 
are in haste to sanction this monstrous absurdity. 

Sir, when a dominant majority, intoxicated with 
the lust of power, are thus hurried on, by a mad 
fanaticism, to the commission of acts like these, 
marked, as they are, by a want of all political 
forecast, all prudent and wise statesmanship, to at 
extent never surpassed in any age or country, 
upon what grounds can the South hope for an 
honorable and safe- adjustment of this great ques- 
tion by this Government? 

And yet, with all these facts before us, it is one 
of the darkest omens of the times, that southern 
statesmen are tendering compromises, in all of 
which the propositions are, to surrender everything 
in dispute to the North, and put the rest in jeop- 
ardy. This is, in fact, but the ceremony of hold- 
in? out the white flag of unconditional rurrende- 
to the conqueror. These compromises, if adopted, 
would be, to give the enemy time to collect his 
forces, and extend his parallels around us, for the 
decisive moment, and to make the final defeat 
more disastrous and more signal, it is by tnis 
miserable policy of offering to take less than the 
Constitution gives us, that the southern forces are 
divided, and the cause of the South broken down 
and ruined. It is an acknowledgment of weak- 
ness, and of inability to protect ourselves, which 
I repudiate and deny. Have the compromises 
heretofore made, been respected and observed? 
Have they stayed the hand of the aggressor? 
What compromise can be made more binding, and 
that will command greater respect, than the Con- 
stitution ? What compromise can be made, that 
vJill not curtail the rights of the South, and which 
the abolition tide will not sweep away? Will 
despotism relent ? Let the records of all past his- 
tory answer. 

Mr. Chairman, the facts which I have present- 



td bring prominently to my mind other facta of 
the gravest importance, which are the result of the 
joint action of all the causes to which L have re- 
ferred. These facta I will now proceed to state. 

I have shown that the political parties North 
have united for the purpose of abolishing slavery. 
By this uftiion of parties, the Constitution is, 
ipso facto, repealed, and the Federal Government 
changed from a confederated republic of equal 
sovereign States, to a consolidated despotism, with 
all political power centred in the hands of the 
majority. The abolition question has, therefore, 
wrought already a fundamental change in our po- 
litical system, and the North, in order to free the 
African slave, have forged the chains of the most 
despotic and absolute political bondage for the 
whise man. 

All see that emancipation would be followed by 
enfranchisement of the black race, by placing it 
on a footing of equality with the white race. All 
must see, too, that the result of such equality 
■wxm'.a oe 6'iile and civil w*r between thp two. 
The result of civil war wouid be the assumption 
by the North of umpirage between the conflicting 
parties, and the effect of this umpirage would be, 
'.he subjection and utter debasement of both races 
it the South. 

If every slave in the Union were emancipated 
now, would this majority lay down its lawless 
power upon ihc altar of the Constitution ? Would 
its aggressive spirit cease with the extinction of 
African slavery? How fatal the delusion of such 
a thought — of such hopes and expectations ! Can 
man change his nature, or lose his lust of power? 
Will he voluntarily exchange strength for weak- 
ness? 

This is the picture which the past and the pres- 
ent concur in presenting to us. Can anything be 
plainer? Let the South look upon it, and decide 
for themselves, the question of submission or re- 
sistance. 

1 have now presented what I believe 
faithful picture of the state of the Union, in refer- 
ence to the great question which disturbs its re- 
pose and harmony. I have shown that the Fed- 
eral Government has already undergone an organic 
rhange. That it claims to be the only judge of 
'he extent of its 'own powers. That the States, 



according to the doctrine of the majority, are no 
longer independent. That the Constitution i-s vir- 
tually lepealed. 

I r.;-.ve ;Ji"wn that the North ' u I into 

one vast majority, for the purpose of overthrowing 
the organic institutions in the southern States. 
That the South cannot reasonably hope to ehetk 
the majority in its designs upon them, by the 
agency of this Government. That it is the avowed 
doctrine of the majority, that the South must sub- 
mit to their will, and if not, the military power 
must be resorted to, to reduce them to subjection. 
That the consequence of all this will be, to reduce 
the people of the South to a condition of political 
degradation, unexampled in any State or country. 

1c becomes, then, a subject for ihe grave st inquiry, 
what is the proper course of action for the South 
to adopt, in this great emergency ? This question 
cannot be decided here. It is a question which 
the people must decide for theuiteives, in their 
sovereign character. 

If CaiifbtTifa be admitted into the Union now, 
and the South do not resort t;> every means in their 
power to assert and maintain their constitutional 
rights, there are well-founded apprehensions that 
it will be decisive against the South forever. In 
the hour that California becomes a State of this 
Union, upon the conditions now demanded, the 
scheme of non-extension will, in effect, be con- 
summated, and the results 1 have indicated will in 
time be accomplished. 

The destiny of the people of the South is in 
their own hands. To make that destiny glorious, 
they have but to will it, and do their duty. It is 
for the North, and not the South, to tremble at the 
prospect before us. I stand here with the Consti- 
tution in my hand, unappalled by the threats and 
denunciations which are daily fulminated here. 
All can see too plainly that these are idle bravadoes, 
designed to frighten us into submission. To these 
bravadoes, I respond only in terms of scorn and 
defiance. We ask that justice which the Consti- 
tution guaranties to us. If this be. denied, then 
without counting the cost or looking to conse- 
quences, I am in favor of resistance to your 
tyranny, " at every hazard and to the last extrem- 
ity." The people of the South know their duty, 
and will do it. 



"rin.'ed at the Congressional Glebe OtTic 



I 



